Stephanie
and others:
Seems
to me a “periodic review” should occur according to a
fixed time period.
That
is, it should be “triggered” by the calendar, not by some
event or problem.
I
cannot overstate the superior accountability features of
fixed, regular periodicity. The incumbent operator
(whether it is ICANN or anyone else) is ALWAYS going to
resist a review and possible new RFP unless it is
hardwired into the system. If the review is a routine,
institutionalized event then all the politics and drama
about whether we have the review goes away. You have it
because it is time to have it. If you make it an
exceptional event, non-periodic, then it is more easily
abused (someone gets angry at someone at threatens to
mount a review, more divisive (some people will think we
should have one, others won’t), more drama (incumbent
resists) and thus more time consuming and destabilizing.
People will fight about whether to have the review,
instead of just getting on with the review.
From:
cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org
[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]
On Behalf Of Duchesneau,
Stephanie
Sent:
Friday, April 17, 2015 9:39 AM
To:
Gomes, Chuck; avri@acm.org;
cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Subject:
Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Bylaws requirements for CWG
Depending
on the model transition adopted we would potentially
need an amendment to the bylaw to note when/how the
Periodic Reviews would be automatically triggered.
Stephanie
Stephanie
Duchesneau
Neustar,
Inc. /
Public
Policy Manager
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4th Floor,
Washington, DC 20006
Office:+1.202.533.2623
Mobile:
+1.703.731.2040 Fax:
+1.202.533.2623/www.neustar.biz
The
information contained in this email message is
intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named
above and may contain confidential and/or privileged
information. If you are not the intended recipient you
have received this email message in error and any
review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this message is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify us
immediately and delete the original message.
From:
cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org
[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]
On Behalf Of Gomes,
Chuck
Sent:
Friday, April 17, 2015 9:18 AM
To:
avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Subject:
Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Bylaws requirements for CWG
Do
we need them for the IANA Review Team (formally the
Periodic Review Team)?
Chuck
From:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org
[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]
On Behalf Of Avri
Doria
Sent:
Friday, April 17, 2015 7:56 AM
To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Subject:
[CWG-Stewardship] Bylaws requirements for CWG
Hi,
Was thinking about bylaws for DT-N Review and DT-X
Separation mechanism and realized that we might also
need one to establish the CSC.
What other bylaws might the CWG need. We should
probably make a list.
avri
|
|
This
email has been checked for viruses by Avast
antivirus software.
|
